the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 13 Jul 2021
Fish and cephalopods monitoring on the Bay of Biscay and Celtic Sea continental shelves
Abstract. The demersal fish and cephalopod communities of the continental shelves of the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea have been monitored for more than 30 years by the EVHOE series of fisheries surveys. Since 1987, a total of 4247 stations have been sampled in the fall with a GOV bottom trawl in a depth range of 15 to 600 m. The main objective of these surveys is to monitor 22 benthic fish stocks and 10 cephalopods but also to provide a description of the distribution of a total of 250 fish and 50 commercial invertebrate taxa. The dataset (https://doi.org/10.17882/80041) provides abundance and biomass information by station for all observed taxa. Size distributions for a selection of species are also available. These data are part of a larger set of standardized European surveys that provide essential information for monitoring demersal communities in the Northeast Atlantic. We propose here a critical analysis of the dataset especially in terms of the evolution of the sampling effort and strategy as well as the taxonomic precision.
- Preprint
(1719 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2021-146', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Aug 2021
First of all I have to acknowledge that I am not familiar with this type of data-papers. Reading it as a regular review, I missed the scientific questions and findings in the abstract and only then understood that the only purpose of the paper was to describe the data set.
I find making only the data available an interesting concept, and I find it very good that the authors are putting the effort in making the whole EVHOE-set available. As a whole set this is definitely an interesting data set, that can be used in numerous fisheries and ecological studies.
However, a large part of the dataset is (of course) already for many years available via the ICES DATRAS database and most of the survey design is already (better) described in the ICES manual (ICES, 2017). Some of the sentences/sections in the MS are straight from that manual. The ICES database is (more or less) restricted to uploading a fixed set of fish, cephalopods and commercial invertebrate species, which means a large part of the invertebrate data collected on the EVHOE survey is not available via Datras. So reading the MS I expected that the dataset described in the MS would include the information that (currently) can’t be upload to DATRAS. However, on line 61-62, it is stated that the non-commercial invertebrate are actually not yet included. Also the spring data, which is not available in Datras, is not included in the current data set. The only part currently different from the Datras database seems to be the first 7 years (1987-1995) which as is stated in the document are complicated to be combined owing to the vessel change. Which is the reason that these older data are not available in Datras as they are in the assessments not used in combination with the recent data. The authors further state on line 266 that a strength of the data set is the additional data. I agree that that type of data would make the use of the dataset more interesting. However, neither that data is currently provided. While, I expect that the hydrological data is already available via ICES, as is the litter data (mentioned in line 57). Concluding, at the moment I do not see the added value of this data set over the data set already available at ICES. So maybe better to publish this dataset when these additional data become available instead of promising these data without a planned date for making them available. If the editors think it is worth publishing the current dataset, I advise to make clearer in the text which data is currently part of the dataset and what the difference is with the ICES dataset.
A worry I have related to the dataset is how the authors plan to maintain their local dataset, the one at ices and the current one provided. From experience, I know that on a regular basis things within the ICES database are corrected/updated. Which is likely also the case when people start using this dataset. So how will the authors deal with that, as it undesirable that the content of the similar datasets start to deviate.
I made small corrections/additions in the pdf and added some comments in it as well. I only made small corrections, however I constantly had the urge to rewrite large sections or reorder sections in the MS. I believe rewriting large parts of the text, including putting some of the things in tables, taking out duplications and also taking out information not necessary to understanding the data set and its use, could make the text of the MS shorter and much better readable. As its purpose is to describe the dataset, there is no need for a lengthy document, a short and comprehensive text would according to me better fit the purpose.
I am not convinced that the figures currently used to showcase parts of the content of the data set are the most relevant or the most useful choices. However I can’t come up with better solutions at the moment.
Overall: the concept of publishing the full survey data set seems interesting and relevant. The currently provided dataset is not really unique and the MS would in my opinion require a major rewrite to make it a better reference document than the current ICES manual. So I advise a large revision, and maybe even extending the publication until a larger data set with unique data currently not available yet can be provided.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
We thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for your in-depth reading and the proposal for substantial improvement.
I am myself not very familiar with these data papers but we found that the interest of publishing this "data paper" was to propose a description of a dataset that is only known by the operators/observers of the survey. Such information is never present in the documents describing the standard protocols. This essential information that is often missing will be lost if it is not published and attached to a standard dataset. Furthermore, the objective of the brief data analysis is not to provide an in-depth critical analysis of the data (which is highly dependent on the use that is made of the data) but to point out some key elements to be taken into account when using them. However, we have modified and expanded it slightly as you proposed.
The publication of the dataset itself is indeed partially redundant with the one proposed in the framework of ICES and the DATRAS database (to which we also contribute and cited in the paper). Regarding the legitimate concern of data update and divergence, both data sources are corrected and updated simultaneously by the same team. On the other hand, proposed dataset is simplified, but above all it is well identified (DOI) with a reference on its nature and quality. Some datasets in the DATRAS database are, for example, truncated for part or all of their time series, with a truncated list of fish and cephalopod species. Such information is not always described or easily accessible. Finally, this publication opens access to these data to a wider audience than those familiar with ICES data.
All the specific comments were answered in the joined pdf file and corrections were made to the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-146', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Sep 2021
Dear Authors,
congratulation to this valuable contribution. Even if the main dataset is available at ICES datras; there is no harm to make it available at other public sources. However, it would be good to describe the differences of both datasets within the manuscript.
I am not aware of these technical papers, but I am familiar with ICES standard surveys. Regarding the technical part of the manuscript, I miss the standard protocols for biological sampling. For example, maturity scales, species identification and length measurements.
I would also prefer a separate section about the limitations of the survey (even it is mentioned in several parts of the manuscript) as a kind of health warning, as it might be that people who are not familiar with those datasets will download and analyse the data. In this section I would suggest to provide some more information about target species, gear selectivity (length and species) and the problems with species identification (as it is already perfect mentioned) etc.. Because it is mentioned that the dataset is usable for long-term observations, e.g. changes due to fishing and climate change, the limitation for this kind of analysis should be clearly stated to protect users for an overinterpretation.
The quality of the figures is not sufficient. Especially the axis of Figure 4 is not readable.
Finally, some English improvements are necessary.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-146-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
We thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for suggested improvements.
The content and the sequence of the paragraphs have been revised.
The quality of the figures has been greatly improved as well as some parts for English.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-146-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2021-146', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Aug 2021
First of all I have to acknowledge that I am not familiar with this type of data-papers. Reading it as a regular review, I missed the scientific questions and findings in the abstract and only then understood that the only purpose of the paper was to describe the data set.
I find making only the data available an interesting concept, and I find it very good that the authors are putting the effort in making the whole EVHOE-set available. As a whole set this is definitely an interesting data set, that can be used in numerous fisheries and ecological studies.
However, a large part of the dataset is (of course) already for many years available via the ICES DATRAS database and most of the survey design is already (better) described in the ICES manual (ICES, 2017). Some of the sentences/sections in the MS are straight from that manual. The ICES database is (more or less) restricted to uploading a fixed set of fish, cephalopods and commercial invertebrate species, which means a large part of the invertebrate data collected on the EVHOE survey is not available via Datras. So reading the MS I expected that the dataset described in the MS would include the information that (currently) can’t be upload to DATRAS. However, on line 61-62, it is stated that the non-commercial invertebrate are actually not yet included. Also the spring data, which is not available in Datras, is not included in the current data set. The only part currently different from the Datras database seems to be the first 7 years (1987-1995) which as is stated in the document are complicated to be combined owing to the vessel change. Which is the reason that these older data are not available in Datras as they are in the assessments not used in combination with the recent data. The authors further state on line 266 that a strength of the data set is the additional data. I agree that that type of data would make the use of the dataset more interesting. However, neither that data is currently provided. While, I expect that the hydrological data is already available via ICES, as is the litter data (mentioned in line 57). Concluding, at the moment I do not see the added value of this data set over the data set already available at ICES. So maybe better to publish this dataset when these additional data become available instead of promising these data without a planned date for making them available. If the editors think it is worth publishing the current dataset, I advise to make clearer in the text which data is currently part of the dataset and what the difference is with the ICES dataset.
A worry I have related to the dataset is how the authors plan to maintain their local dataset, the one at ices and the current one provided. From experience, I know that on a regular basis things within the ICES database are corrected/updated. Which is likely also the case when people start using this dataset. So how will the authors deal with that, as it undesirable that the content of the similar datasets start to deviate.
I made small corrections/additions in the pdf and added some comments in it as well. I only made small corrections, however I constantly had the urge to rewrite large sections or reorder sections in the MS. I believe rewriting large parts of the text, including putting some of the things in tables, taking out duplications and also taking out information not necessary to understanding the data set and its use, could make the text of the MS shorter and much better readable. As its purpose is to describe the dataset, there is no need for a lengthy document, a short and comprehensive text would according to me better fit the purpose.
I am not convinced that the figures currently used to showcase parts of the content of the data set are the most relevant or the most useful choices. However I can’t come up with better solutions at the moment.
Overall: the concept of publishing the full survey data set seems interesting and relevant. The currently provided dataset is not really unique and the MS would in my opinion require a major rewrite to make it a better reference document than the current ICES manual. So I advise a large revision, and maybe even extending the publication until a larger data set with unique data currently not available yet can be provided.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
We thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for your in-depth reading and the proposal for substantial improvement.
I am myself not very familiar with these data papers but we found that the interest of publishing this "data paper" was to propose a description of a dataset that is only known by the operators/observers of the survey. Such information is never present in the documents describing the standard protocols. This essential information that is often missing will be lost if it is not published and attached to a standard dataset. Furthermore, the objective of the brief data analysis is not to provide an in-depth critical analysis of the data (which is highly dependent on the use that is made of the data) but to point out some key elements to be taken into account when using them. However, we have modified and expanded it slightly as you proposed.
The publication of the dataset itself is indeed partially redundant with the one proposed in the framework of ICES and the DATRAS database (to which we also contribute and cited in the paper). Regarding the legitimate concern of data update and divergence, both data sources are corrected and updated simultaneously by the same team. On the other hand, proposed dataset is simplified, but above all it is well identified (DOI) with a reference on its nature and quality. Some datasets in the DATRAS database are, for example, truncated for part or all of their time series, with a truncated list of fish and cephalopod species. Such information is not always described or easily accessible. Finally, this publication opens access to these data to a wider audience than those familiar with ICES data.
All the specific comments were answered in the joined pdf file and corrections were made to the manuscript.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2021-146', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Sep 2021
Dear Authors,
congratulation to this valuable contribution. Even if the main dataset is available at ICES datras; there is no harm to make it available at other public sources. However, it would be good to describe the differences of both datasets within the manuscript.
I am not aware of these technical papers, but I am familiar with ICES standard surveys. Regarding the technical part of the manuscript, I miss the standard protocols for biological sampling. For example, maturity scales, species identification and length measurements.
I would also prefer a separate section about the limitations of the survey (even it is mentioned in several parts of the manuscript) as a kind of health warning, as it might be that people who are not familiar with those datasets will download and analyse the data. In this section I would suggest to provide some more information about target species, gear selectivity (length and species) and the problems with species identification (as it is already perfect mentioned) etc.. Because it is mentioned that the dataset is usable for long-term observations, e.g. changes due to fishing and climate change, the limitation for this kind of analysis should be clearly stated to protect users for an overinterpretation.
The quality of the figures is not sufficient. Especially the axis of Figure 4 is not readable.
Finally, some English improvements are necessary.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-146-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
We thank you for reviewing this manuscript and for suggested improvements.
The content and the sequence of the paragraphs have been revised.
The quality of the figures has been greatly improved as well as some parts for English.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2021-146-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Pascal Laffargue, 18 Mar 2022
Data sets
Long term benthic community dataset for fish and cephalopods on the continental shelves of the Bay of Biscay and the Celtic Sea P. Laffargue, D. Delaunay, V. Badts, O. Berthele, A. S. Cornou, F. Garren https://doi.org/10.17882/80041
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 687 | 319 | 44 | 1,050 | 34 | 39 |
- HTML: 687
- PDF: 319
- XML: 44
- Total: 1,050
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 39
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
